March 16th,2010

Countering the Statist Rhetoric and Ignorance Regarding Nullification

Allison Bricker

Essay No. 1 – Ignorance may only flourish in an environment whereby information is controlled either by the state so it may wield unquestioned authority or by academic elite who feel contempt for those of a different station. Neither however may retain their grasp in perpetuum. Such is our situation, thus let us seize this glorious opportunity to the benefit of Human Liberty. We live in a time where knowledge is more freely available to those who desire like no other time in human history. The internet is as revolutionary to the propagation of knowledge as was the Gutenberg Press in its day, which helped usher in the first ‘Age of Enlightenment’.

Nevertheless, a shrinking remnant of individuals who refuse to educate themselves further as well as those who purposely forward false information and half-truths hoping in vain to retain the reigns of their pseudo authority persist. They sit  proliferating sound bite-intellectual morsels from their old-media studios and halls of government hoping their “facts” remain unchecked and thus accepted as truth. Never is a  case of this absurdity more painfully evident than as it relates to the action of nullification against government. Whether by a state or an individual, the word nullification is utterly mired in incomprehension.

Typically, speaking of nullification in the political sense will elicit a poorly informed crippled view of history resulting in a quip regarding the “Civil War” or segregation. Both are utter logical fallacies based on the fact that government was using the law to deny individuals their natural rights in the first place. A fact that is plain and counter to the organic laws of the American Union.

What they are remiss to acknowledge or possibly are wholly unaware, Nullification has worked as a check against Federal power throughout the history of the Republic. Most especially in the cases of the denial of free speech, the imprisonment of those deemed “enemies”, a coerced military draft, and enforcement of the Patriot Act, just to name a few.

It remains imperative that the principle, which prevents the Central Authority from acting as final arbiter of its own power, remain both intact and fully understood. Those powers should and must remain the purview of the several states and the People themselves.

Your Tax Money at Work

Joseph Marohl

Tax day (April 15th) is over, and we have been once again reminded that we Americans pay taxes, that we would rather not have to pay taxes, and that we would rather keep our own to look after our own—assuming our own is enough to do so.

I wish there were some way to have government services without paying government taxes—but my guess is that privateers in charge of police work and the monitoring of food and drug safety would be (though perhaps more efficient than the government) more expensive—and perhaps more susceptible to bribes and serving the interests of the wealthy over the common good. I say “more susceptible” because, obviously, there is some corruption already among law enforcement officers and government inspectors, though invariably bribes come from somewhere, usually from (surprise!) the private sector.

And the government has not usually been a good steward of our tax dollars or our trust. Unlike those who blame “special interests” such as welfare moms, tree-hugging environmentalists, and warm and fuzzy-thinking liberals everywhere, I tend to blame special interests like the corporate world, Wall Street, and, most especially, the war profiteers.

To be sure, World War II, the good war against fascism and genocide, made America the rich and powerful nation that it was for the remainder of the twentieth century. But unlike the present wars, started by Bush and his Republican and Democratic supporters, the Second World War was a war of cooperation between the people and the government. For instance, during the war 85 million Americans bought $185.7 billion in war bonds. Women and men unable to serve in uniform relocated to parts of the country they had never seen before in order to do office and factory work vacated by enlistees—my mother was one such person—and my father (of German heritage, who didn’t even speak English until the first grade) was quick to enlist in the U.S. Army. (Don’t even start the “real Americans” bullshit around me.)

(On the other hand, some American firms, even those active in building the “Arsenal of Democracy,” such as Ford Motors, General Motors, and Chase Manhattan Bank, had worked with the Nazis before the war and maintained operations in Germany even during the war.)

When the war ended, President Truman’s late 1946 executive order transferred the Manhattan Project’s research and facilities to private ownership—all to maintain the principle (I would say “fetish”) of free enterprise in the United States—while the U.S. federal government has continued sponsoring research in the private sectors ever since, and then buying back products for use in the military and other government sectors, often paying many times what such products would usually garner in the free market alone.

Nuclear energy has spawned growth in virtually every area of technology and science in the six decades since Truman. The profits of this one technology alone—had the American taxpayers been allowed to hold on to its patent, after huge wartime sacrifices by the people to fund this research—could perhaps reduce if not entirely erase the need for income taxes today.

Apart from the apocalyptic discoveries of the Manhattan Project, research in NASA, the U.S. military, and state university systems has contributed much to the prosperity of the nation. Costs of research failures have been swallowed by the government—and its taxpayers (“pork”). The successes, however, have been divvied out to private corporations—who, on top of receiving the fruits of research paid for by the taxpayers, pay a substantially lower tax rate than ordinary citizens, sometimes reduced to zero through tax loopholes and charitable deductions and the like.

In 1958, the federal creation of the Advanced Research Projects Agency (ARPA) created, through the Information Processing Technology Office (IPTO), the computer networking design that became, after it was commercialized in 1988, the World-Wide Web or the Internet. Only recently Time-Warner Cable planned to charge Internet users based on the amount of use—American Internet users, the ones who paid for the goddamned thing’s invention. Due to public and political outcry, Time-Warner backed down just this week.

NASA has financed the creation of new metal and glass alloys and spawned such spin-off merchandise as scratch-resistant lenses, wireless communications, freeze-dried foods, athletic shoes, virtual reality, microcomputers, laser technology, sports bras, hang gliders, quartz crystal timing, solar energy, digital imaging, the electric car, and a wide array of other useful and high-profit items.

Imagine if the American people, who financed this research through their taxes, also received at least some of the benefits of the worldwide marketing of the products stemming from this government-funded research.

Entertainment and organized crime have been the most profitable aspects of the free market not to be propped up with taxpayers’ money. And if I decided to be extra-cynical, I could add that one could make a pretty good argument that the obscenely profitable drug trade owes a debt to us taxpayers as well, through CIA operations in South America, the Vietnam war, and, most recently, Afghanistan, regaining its lead as the top producer of heroin just one year after the U.S. military deposed the Taliban.

So it seems to me that nationalization of industries directly indebted to government research and tax funding in the first place could be one way, along with more prudent budgeting by government leaders and more oversight by aware citizens, to reduce and perhaps even eliminate income taxes altogether.

Un-American. I know.


Operation: Solvo Sermo – Stop the Fairness Doctrine

Allison Bricker


 

Once again, current and former hack politicians are calling for a reinstatement of the “Fairness Doctrine,” or in short and contrary what the title advertises, censorship. Joining the plutocrats in their chorus call for a government mandate, are many of the failed or failing “progressive” talk radio hosts, ergo Bill Press.

Every time Mr. Press gets the chance, he whines incessantly about how unfair it is that radio stations are dropping “socialist” talk radio in favor of another format. One recent victim of the pathetically low ratings in the “socialist” talk radio graveyard is Obama 1260 AM out of Washington D.C. As of February 9th, less than four months since its birth as a progressive bastion of all things Obama, the station had such pitiful ratings, WWRC decided to drop the format and focus on the imploding economy instead.

However, Mr. Press seems more concerned with the loss of his own salary than actually trying to develop a working business model. He has literally begged Senators Harkin (D-IA) and Stabenow (D-MI) to have government grant him job protection vis-à-vis the “Fairness Doctrine”, as his ilk’s brand of talk radio hemorrhages affiliates around the country.

Unfortunately, for Mr. Press however, it was recently revealed that Senator Stabenow’s husband; one of the biggest supporters of progressive talk in the Senate” according to Mr. Press, is the “Father of Progressive talk,” former Vice-President of the bankrupted Air America, and remains a top level executive in the television/internet industry.

As recently as last week, even President Clinton jumped on the bandwagon calling for a reinstatement of the Federal censorship policy. Additionally, recently confirmed Attorney General, Eric Holder has publicly commented upon expanding the reach of the “Fairness Doctrine” to the internet.
Thus, we present Phase One of Operation: Solvo Sermo, Stop the Fairness Doctrine. Please stay tuned to The Smoking Argus Daily, as we get ready to launch Phase Two in the coming weeks.

 

The Departure of George W. Bush Lends Little to Celebrate

Kelly

It would be an understatement to say that after President George W. Bush was reelected in 2004, I was disappointed.  In fact, I was truly disgusted.  I could not believe that just over half of the American people wanted another term filled with fear, war, and the erosion of our civil liberties.  And so, instead of having that debate,  mainstream media did a fine job of spinning and attributing Bush’s re-election to the issue of cultural and social morality; and let us not forget that he is the man (the recovering alcoholic) that everyone wanted to share a beer with at their backyard barbecue.  A martini with Kerry or a Bud Light with Bush?  You decide.

It is fair to say that during the Presidential bid of 2004, I was still buying into the two-party system of liberal democrats and conservative republicans.  What other viable choice was there?  I was, as so many Americans still are, desperate to believe that one of these characters was a person that actually cared about our country and its people.  I think most people start out this way, believing in the system, the process as it were.  And why shouldn’t we?  Most of us attended  public government run schools for 13 years, being told that the democratic process in this country was good, and that we were the good guys.  I suppose it is quite comforting to grow up feeling that we are the heroes, the richest, the strongest, the best of the best.  And, I suppose this is exactly why much of our population continues to believe that we are still a free and just nation, or that voting for one man or the other means…something.

But, in November 2004, things changed for me.  I had become so over-exhausted by the mainstream media after following the election for a year or more, that I turned off the television for at least six months as a way of wiping the slate clean.  Shortly thereafter, I became a noob to the internet.  Of course, I’m still considered a noob by most standards; though this matters little in the scheme of things. (Reading does not require one to know how to use umpteem different applications.)  However, having internet access was paramount to shifting my political understanding and leanings.  Being able to read from nearly any newspaper or online publication in the world was enough to make anyone go into information overload.  But the fog of NBC and the like had been lifted.  Slowly, I went from democrat to independent and ultimately to where I am today, which is skeptical of nearly anything.  And though I’ve lost the comforts that denial once provided, there is nothing like liberation from a prison-like state of mind.

The last four years have only stood to make a cynic more cynical.

So now, as we try to put the corruption and financial panic of 2008 behind us and brace for the abyss that will soon characterize 2009, we’re left with nothing more than the ritual of one President exiting stage right and his successor entering stage left.   Yes, ladies and gentleman, Bush is finally at the wee tail end of his Presidency.  Though I’m not feeling the jubilation that I felt so certain about four years previous.  When the differences between Bush and Obama come down to the pronunciation of words, I’m not getting what there is to celebrate in Bush’s departure.  A strong and savvy intellect mean very little when one is batting for the same team, no?

Needless to say, ‘change’ is not coming to Washington any time soon. There will be more of the same.  McCain or Obama, it never really made a difference.  The problem is that as we turn the page, we are not headed towards a more perfect union.  We are headed into a very dark time, of course that is only after the  Obama frenzy starts to dissipate.  If you weren’t pleased with the bailouts of 2008, you will most certainly be dissapointed by the amount of money Obama is about to print and spend in every attempt to keep this ship from sinking.  Sadly, a large scale Titanic is more likely to ensue.

Suffice it to say that this end of one and beginning of another is not nearly the splendidly joyous time I once believed it would be.

 

Sources: 1 http://www.reason.com/news/show/130832.html, 2http://abcnews.go.com/business/economy/Story?id=6332892&page=1, 3http://www.examiner.com/x-536-Civil-Liberties-Examiner~y2009m1d13-Obamas-new-New-Deal-stimulus-package-could-prolong-economic-crisis

1st Amendment Needs to be Strengthened to Preserve Original Intent

Allison Bricker

The impetus behind our founders warning government to keep its hands off the press comes not from a love of newspapers per se, but rather the necessity of free and uncensored mass communication. Newspapers just happened to be the only form of mass communication at the time.

Prior to the American Revolution, journalists who dissented against the royal governments, its decrees or public office holders often found themselves imprisoned and their equipment destroyed. One of the most famous trials of a journalist falsely charged is that of John Peter Zenger.

Mr. Zenger published criticisms of New York’s “Royal” Governor, William Crosby. Shortly thereafter, Mr. Zenger found himself imprisoned and charged with libel. His attorney, Philadelphia lawyer, Andrew Hamilton successfully argued that one could not commit libel merely by publishing opinion or fact.1

It is my opinion that the The first Amendment to our Federal Constitution is too narrowly interpreted. Thus, had the internet, television, or radio, been present during the drafting of our Constitution, it is clear that the Founding Fathers would have extended government prohibitions on censorship to these mediums as well. However, the FEC has already attempted to sidestep the 1st Amendment and censor blogs under the auspices of McCain-Feingold.2 Now the FCC is set to rule on the creation of a free nationwide filtered internet under the guise of “protecting the children”.3

It is also obvious by a candid reading of the uncensored historical record, that the plutocrats made massive inroads in their attempt to centralize Federal power from the beginning of the 20th Century. After the passage of the 16th and 17th Amendments, we then see a massive encroachment upon our unalienable rights with the passage of the “Espionage Act of 1917″4 and “The Sedition Act of 1918″5. The Espionage Act was passed at the urging of President Woodrow Wilson who felt that dissent during war could jeopardize our potential for victory. His flawed logic still exists today and is echoed by hacks like Senator Joe Lieberman (D-CT). This belief is a stark contrast to the Founding Fathers who were all too familiar with the oppressive hand of government censorship.

The best known victim of prosecution under the “Espionage Act of 1917″ is Eugene Debs. Mr. Debs had previously run for President as the Socialist Party’s candidate and publicly denounced the U.S. involvement in World War I. He was charged with “obstructing military recruiting” after a speech in 1918. Mr. Debs was found guilty of sedition and sentenced to 10 years in prison. After serving three years, he was pardoned by President Harding and released.6 It is immaterial to me that I would vehemently debate and ultimately disagree with Mr. Deb’s socialist philosophy. His imprisonment merely demonstrates the lengths politicians will go to in order to silence opposition.

We the People, have failed to be vigilant as the guardians of our own liberties and we must bear some of the burden. In addition to the Espionage and Sedition Acts, by allowing the FCC to declare the airwaves publicly owned and therefore subject to regulation we do ourselves a massive disservice in pursuit of the truth. The consequences of this massive failure, was to allow the creation of broadcast licensing. By allowing the dissemination of information to be controlled by an ever decreasing amount of individual corporations via licensing we lose our ability to make proper judgments on matters of national importance, such as the invasion of Iraq or the disgusting pursuit of legalized torture by the Executive Branch.

Tyrants and their sycophant sympathizers love to claim that the FCC grants licenses to those who “serve the public interest”. However, the historical record contradicts this altruistic pursuit and in the end it merely grants licenses to those who serve to swell the bank accounts of both the bureaucrats and politicians.7

Fellow readers, the internet has allowed for the greatest expanse of news, opinions, and knowledge humanity has ever known. Abuse by some in the form of unsourced or libelous news reports does not justify statements by the traitor to the Constitution known as Connecticut Senator Joe Lieberman, who in a letter to Google regarding YouTube videos wrote:

“In other words, Islamist terrorist organizations use YouTube to disseminate their propaganda, enlist followers, and provide weapons training – activities that are all essential to terrorist activity. According to testimony received by our Committee, the online content produced by al-Qaeda and other Islamist terrorist organizations can play a significant role in the process of radicalization, the end point of which is the planning and execution of a terrorist attack.”8

There is indeed great danger in the notion that a hack Senator and two-time loser such as Joe Lieberman should be telling a private corporation what should be censored for the sake of national security. The biggest dangers to national security are the power-hungry ambitions of terrorist politicians like Joe Lieberman and his insurgent bureaucratic operatives who seek to wage their personal jihad on the 1st Amendment and our inherent liberties.

Further, President-Elect Obama has selected Eric Holder as Attorney General. The Plutocratic fundamentalist, Eric Holder has also spoken publicly about his desire to censor the internet and further erode the 1st Amendment via his interpretation of “reasonable regulation”.

The time is now upon us, to beat back the ever encroaching hand of government and amend the Constitution to expand the scope of the 1st Amendment, thus ensuring all forms of communication both current and those not yet fathomed are protected from those who seek to stifle the free exchange of ideas and expression.

 

In closing, my only regret is that I have but one life to blog for my Republic.
Don’t Tread on Me!

 

Source(s): 1University of Missouri Kansas City School of Law2 FEC Agenda Document Number 05-163 CNET – “FCC Cancels Meeting for Free Interent Vote”4 Espionage Act of 19175 Sedition Act of 19186 DEBS v UNITED STATES of AMERICA No. 7147 McCain Denies Pushing FCC on Paxson Behalf8 Dialogue with Senator Lieberman on Terrorism Videos

Google Admits to Capability of Censoring Search Results

Allison Bricker

GOOGLE, Inc. acknowledged this week that its employees do have the ability to alter search results and rankings. For a company who claims their mantra to be “Do no Evil” this is a troubling admission, albeit not too surprising. Most are already aware that Google along with a consortium of other companies helps the Chinese government (and now Australia and Italy) censor the internet in a scheme dubbed “The Great Firewall of China.”

However, for a company which once claimed to rely solely on their proprietary “PigeonRank”1 system, a computer generated algorithm developed by Google, Inc.’s founders, it sort of makes their disclaimer at the bottom of the Google news page disingenuous.

From Google News:

“The selection and placement of stories on this page were determined automatically by a computer program. The time or date displayed reflects when an article was added to Google News.”2

During the LeWeb ‘08 conference in Paris, France in an interview with Michael Arrington of TechCrunch, Marissa Mayer, GOOGLE Vice-President of Search and User Experience said:

“..I do think there is a possibility of us looking in aggregate when we see large signals [in GOOGLE Search Wiki], you know, a thousand people deleted this result from a search, those will start to be signals that could be used in search.”3

While Google is a private company and no way bound to free speech as a public government entity would be, the fact that the company admits to the likelihood of fudging search results is a substantial backtrack on the company’s previous statements. Google rose to capture 60% market share on the false promise of unfettered search results by algorithm.

This also is troubling since GOOGLE owns YouTube the video sharing site, which is constantly under accusation by users of mischief regarding view counters, ratings, honors, etcetera. Combine the search engine dominance, video dominance, RSS dominance through Google’s acquisition of FeedBurner, and being in the final stages of acquiring DIGG4 for “somewhere around 200 million” and we see the old-media business model fully employed by a “new media” behemoth.

It is my opinion that as the consolidation and roll out of Web 2.0 continues, now is the time for a competitor to rise up and keep GOOGLE from obtaining monopoly. Therefore, those of us who enjoy the open uncensored access the web has to offer must make use of upstarts like BreakTheMatrix.com and Zuula.com.


Source(s): 1 Google Inc., “Our Search – Google Technology”2 News.Google.com – Disclaimer3TechCrunch “Marissa Mayer At Le Web: The (Almost) Complete Interview”4 The Independent Online – Google close to acquiring Digg for ‘$200m’